The Curse of 1920

Started by Garak, May 03, 2008, 05:01 PM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

gwallan

Of course women should have the vote. It's not the voters who are the problem. It's the dills they vote for.

Feminist Fantasies Bernard Chapin

Quote
Historically speaking, tyrannical governments have killed, imprisoned, banished or, at the very least, silenced whoever or whatever opposed them. They never funded ethnic studies departments as a means to advance the cause of their foes or enacted hiring quotas as a means to massage them. Rogue states don’t do those sorts of things and neither would radical feminists if they became our leaders…which is reason enough for why we must fight them.


Feminists have, and continue, to argue that men exclude women at every opportunity. And that our history is replete with examples of this exclusion. The basis of their constant claims of dicrimination stem from this argument as well as implying intent on mens' behalf. This stands in stark contrast to everything men have done over the past century and continue to do.

The truth is that historically the genders have operated in distinct spheres of influence.
Is There Anything Good About Men? - Roy F. Baumeister (Don't be fooled by the title.)
Modern feminism consists, in part, of demands to enable, and even advantage, womens access to what were once predominantly male spheres. Simultaneously they actively work to deny men access to the traditionally female spheres.

If one looks at the areas where feminism has had it's greatest influence since the seventies - family law, abuse and the law, health, reproductive rights etc - it is notable that they consistantly run closed shops. Services, advocacy and outreach are not only run almost exclusively by women/feminists they are also exclusively FOR women. There are constant demands, often successful, for women-only "spaces", services and businesses while men-only spaces attract outrage and hysteria.

In much that they do feminists are prone to projection or transference. Simply put they have no insight into male thought processes and have only their own upon which to base their theory.Their thinking stems from a distinctly female mindset(feminists are the last folk who would be willing to even try to empathise with men) and they frequently accuse men of behaving in ways that they, as women, are far more inclined toward.

Judge them by their actions. Men have demonstrated for decades a willingness to enable women and even advantage women over their fellow men. Contrarily feminists do everything in their power to limit, or even deny altogether, mens opportunities.

In politics there is a concept refered to as the "slippery slope". Once a particular position or action is legitimised, no matter how wrong or unethical, it will continue and all things stemming from it become possible. It can be seen throughout history where changes in regimes or governments make no difference. The little corruptions will continue under the new regime because the previous one has legitimised them.

In the case of feminism, particularly of the radical variety, there is an almost religious belief that men have consistantly oppressed, disadvantaged and discriminated against women. Make no mistake that, if they gain power, they will act in exactly the way they believe the "patriarchy" has throughout history. They have already demonstrated their willingness to exclude men at every opportunity.

"One of the great trgedies of life is that men love women, women love children, and children love hamsters" - Bettina Arndt - Australian gender commentor

Warren Farrell argues that the man who abuses a woman is, rather than behaving in a typical male fashion, experiencing a complete break from his conditioning. That the default male state, by virtue of both instinct and social conditioning, is one of protectiveness toward women and children. "Don't hit girls". "Don't hurt those weaker than yourself". "Don't fight dirty". Women, by contrast, while normally instinctively protective of their own children have no such instinct or conditioning where men are concerned.

Ester Vilar, in her 1974 book "The Manipulated Man", warned against giving women control of mens welfare. Thus far it appears she may be very well be correct. If radical feminism achieves widespread power they will not only consider their own previous modus operandi appropriate they will also behave in exactly the way they "know" the patriarchy(ie men) to have done.

Ester Vilar, decades ago, and Bernard Chapin today, are quite wise and, possibly, prophetic in the warnings they give.
In 95% of things 100% of people are alike. It's the other 5%, the bits that are different, that make us interesting. It's also the key to our existence, and future, as a species.

Garak

#16
May 03, 2008, 07:18 PM Last Edit: May 03, 2008, 07:21 PM by Garak





This is my issue.

If women can't be trusted as leaders, then how can they be trusted as mothers?


The stats say that they can't.


What stats are those?


The ones that report that women abuse children more than men.


I have my doubts about that stat.  I believe the statistic that more abuse of children is perpetrated by women than men.  I also suspect that more diamonds are stolen out of mine shafts by employee theft by men than women.  The crimes are occupation-specific.  A meaningful statistic would be number of offenders per 1000 population, by gender.


Yeah, that stat is troublesome BECAUSE women have more access to children thanks to our biased courts BUT the stat stands.
I will stop staring at your boobs when you stop staring at my paycheck!

typhonblue



This is my issue.

If women can't be trusted as leaders, then how can they be trusted as mothers?


The stats say that they can't.


The logical conclusion to a group of individuals who are useless is extermination.

Garak




This is my issue.

If women can't be trusted as leaders, then how can they be trusted as mothers?


The stats say that they can't.


The logical conclusion to a group of individuals who are useless is extermination.


Women are not useless.
I will stop staring at your boobs when you stop staring at my paycheck!

typhonblue


Women are not useless.


If they have no use as mothers or as citizens, then what is their use?

Garak



Women are not useless.


If they have no use as mothers or as citizens, then what is their use?


You tell me.
I will stop staring at your boobs when you stop staring at my paycheck!

.

Maybe most people shouldn't be trusted to vote, because all they think about is what the government can do for them.  Used to be that only property owners could vote, because they paid the most in taxes and thus had the biggest stake in shaping public policy.  Today that concept has morphed, with most people engaging in pseudo-socialism and corporate giants capturing public agencies and buying off politicians.  It plays out like the corporate titans vs. the little people, but it's really a battle of which of the two groups can get the most goodies for itself.

In the synthesis, we have never-ending and ever-expanding bloat.  Tax Freedom Day inches inexorably toward December 31.

.



Women are not useless.


If they have no use as mothers or as citizens, then what is their use?


Never buy into this argument!  When someone asks what your "use" is, tell them how useful you are to yourself.  How dare they even assume that you ought to be a tool for someone else's purposes, and your worth measured on that basis.  I call that mentality "Validation Fixation."

Cordell Walker


I'm not going to even touch the "blame women for everything" excuse. You guys feel free but that makes me no better than feminists. Women shoukd vote. They are moral beings same as blacks and any other human. I just don't agree everything went to pot when women voted. It was probably going that way anyway.


do you think that maybe we should issue some kind of fucking competency test for  people  who wanna vote  so we know they know  what  the job  description is of the poeople they are voting for
there are many women and men  too stupid to  vote on dancing with the stars much less on an election
but hving tits doesnt mean  you dont  have a brain
"how can you kill women and children?"---private joker
"Easy, ya just dont lead em as much" ---Animal Mother

Libertariandadd

Meine Damen und Herren, Madames et Monsieurs, Ladies & Gentlemen,
I move to drop this topic. I dont believe that removing womens vote at this point is actually possible and the notion of it can only hurt our cause. Thanks for your insights and your time.  :greener:
'It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy.' George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four

Galt


Maybe most people shouldn't be trusted to vote, because all they think about is what the government can do for them.  Used to be that only property owners could vote, because they paid the most in taxes and thus had the biggest stake in shaping public policy.  Today that concept has morphed, with most people engaging in pseudo-socialism and corporate giants capturing public agencies and buying off politicians.  It plays out like the corporate titans vs. the little people, but it's really a battle of which of the two groups can get the most goodies for itself.

In the synthesis, we have never-ending and ever-expanding bloat.  Tax Freedom Day inches inexorably toward December 31.


Right - an old idea was that people who have a stake in society, people who are out there in the real world working on society, had more entitlement to vote than people who were completely removed from society.

I could picture a small village hundreds of years ago - the men got together and decided to build something. They all work together on the building and it would only seem naturally for that group to vote on something with regard to the construction of that building.

The voting age in the US used to be 21 because the idea was that younger people were not yet fully integrated into society and they were not fully able to appreciate how the real world works. Under the Vietnam war, the (valid) idea came up that if 18-year-old men could be drafted, sent to Vietnam against their will and killed or maimed in the process, then maybe they should also be able to vote. So in true double-standard fashion, the voting age was reduced to 18 for both men and WOMEN, although women were never subject to the draft and men still have to register for selective service today. I also suspect, despite the talk of some politicians, that if a draft came about again, the men would continue to be sent overseas and the woman would continue penning Dear John letters while partying back at home.

If you want all sentient groups to be able to vote regardless of their involvement in society, then there is really no philosophical barrier to letting children vote after they reach some age where they are cognizant in any way of what they are doing (maybe age 5 or 6). There are groups voting today that have no significant involvement in the real world. There are women who have literally never worked and never supported themselves - straight from daddy to hubby - and who are heavily influenced by the crap on TV that is aimed at gullible people. What CAN they know about the real work world? I don't respect their vote much more than that of a 12-year-old, but society has to play pretend in many instances.

The Biscuit Queen

Considering that something like 35% of children are born to single mother homes, and women get 80% of custody in divorce, that only 60% of child abuse is committed by women is very low. Far more women have their kids, so if mothers abused more as a percentage of live-in parents that number should be far higher.

It is like saying more female teachers hit kids than male teachers. Well, of course, there are far more female teachers. Another example is that more male engineers crack $100,000 a year. Well, since less than 20% of engineers are women, it makes sense that so few women would crack $100,000/year.

The stat is still very useful, because it disabuses the notion that women do nothing wrong, and that only men are violent. However as a whole on proving women are MORE violent, it fails.



he Biscuit Queen
www.thebiscuitqueen.blogspot.com

There are always two extremes....the truth lies in the middle.

dr e

This thread has been useful to note that we do indeed have misogynists amongst us.  Sad but true.
Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.

Cordell Walker

the thing is  for example  with the presidential  elections,  you got many people voting for a president and they cant  give  you the job description of president and dont  know the difference between a veto and a cheeto
I say we  have at least some  10 question multiple choice test to weed out the real dee dee dee's
"how can you kill women and children?"---private joker
"Easy, ya just dont lead em as much" ---Animal Mother

gwallan




Women are not useless.


If they have no use as mothers or as citizens, then what is their use?


Never buy into this argument!  When someone asks what your "use" is, tell them how useful you are to yourself.  How dare they even assume that you ought to be a tool for someone else's purposes, and your worth measured on that basis.  I call that mentality "Validation Fixation."


Oh yes. The absolute entithesis of freedom. The ultimate objectification.

Consider the "uses" countless men have been put to throughout history. Cannon fodder springs to mind.


do you think that maybe we should issue some kind of fucking competency test for  people  who wanna vote  so we know they know  what  the job  description is of the poeople they are voting for
there are many women and men  too stupid to  vote on dancing with the stars much less on an election
but hving tits doesnt mean  you dont  have a brain


LOL Men think with their dicks. Women think with their tits. What a world.

Well said tony.


We have sort of compulsory voting in Aus. I reckon that generates a bit more sophistication in the populace where their actual vote is concerned. I can't conceive of denying anyone the vote. The stupid, the brilliant, whatever race, colour, gender. Doesn't matter. If everybody votes then everybody is responsible.


Meine Damen und Herren, Madames et Monsieurs, Ladies & Gentlemen,
I move to drop this topic. I dont believe that removing womens vote at this point is actually possible and the notion of it can only hurt our cause. Thanks for your insights and your time.  :greener:


UK feminist Julie Birchall has argued that women who don't identify as feminists should be denied the vote.

In 95% of things 100% of people are alike. It's the other 5%, the bits that are different, that make us interesting. It's also the key to our existence, and future, as a species.

Go Up